I ran into such a problem today that I cannot pass the View to the method.
I doing all this in order to get rid of the numerous dubbing code.
For example, I will show how I see it and if there is such the ability to pass to the method, then how to implement it the ability to pass to the method
error when passing to the method
how can I fix this problem?
Try this and see if it gets you anywhere.
public class Test
{
private SelectFrom<Account>.View testView;
public void Test()
{
Method1(testView.View);
Method2(testView);
}
public void Method1(PXView test)
{
}
private void Method2(FbqlSelect<SelectFromBase<Account,TypeArrayOf<IFbqlJoin>.Empty>, Account>.View view)
{
var current = view.Current;
}
}
Related
Unit test noob here.
I have three classes: Db1Dao, Db2Dao, ExecuteClass where Db1Dao, Db2Dao are database access objects for two different databases. My goal is to fetch some data from db1 using Db1Dao and run executeClass.execute() to "put" the processed data into db2 using Db2Dao.
My ExecuteClass looks like this:
class ExecuteClass {
private Db1Dao db1Dao;
private Db2Dao db2Dao;
public void execute() {
...
List<String> listOfString = getExternalData(someParam);
List<Metadata> metadatum = db1Dao.get(someInputs);
... I do something to generate a list of new class `A` based on listOfString & metadatum ...
try {
db2Dao.put(listOfA);
} catch (PutException e){
...
}
}
public List<String> getExternalData(SomeClass someParam){
... do something
return listOfString;
}
}
Now I want to test:
Given a specific listOfString (returned by getExternalData) and a specific metadatum (returned by db1Dao.get):
Will I get the desired listOfA?
Am I able to call db2Dao.put and its input parameter is listOfA?
Particularly, I have hard-coded sample listOfString and metadatum and desired listOfA (and they will be passed via an object MockData, see the following code) but I don't know how to write the test using Mockito. The following is a test class I wrote but it does not work:
class TestClass extends BaseTest {
#Mock
private Db1Dao db1Dao;
#Mock
private Db2Dao db2Dao;
private ExecuteClass executeClass;
#BeforeEach
public void setUp() {
MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(this);
executeClass = new ExecuteClass(db1Dao, db2Dao);
}
#ParameterizedTest
#MethodSource("MockDataProvider")
public void executeClassTest(final MockData mockData) throws PutException {
Mockito.when(db1Dao.get(Mockito.any(), ...))
.thenReturn(mockData.getMetadatum());
ExecuteClass executeClassSpy = Mockito.spy(executeClass);
Mockito.when(executeClassSpy.getExternalData(Mockito.any()))
.thenReturn(mockData.getListOfString());
executeClassSpy.execute();
// executeClass.execute(); not working neither...
List<A> listOfA = mockData.getDesiredListOfA();
Mockito.verify(db2Dao).put(listOfA);
}
}
Could anyone please let me know? Thank you in advance!!
You should not create a spy of the same class you want to test. Instead, try to write a unit test for the smallest amount of code (e.g. a public method) and mock every external operator (in your case Db1Dao and Db2Dao).
If testing a public method involves calling another public method of the same class, make sure to mock everything inside the other public method (in your case getExternalData). Otherwise, this other public method might be a good candidate for an extra class to have clear separation of concerns.
So, remove the ExecuteClass executeClassSpy = Mockito.spy(executeClass); and make sure you setup everything with Mockito what's called within getExternalData.
To now actually, verify that Db2Dao was called with the correct parameter, either use your current approach with verifying the payload. But here it's important to 100% create the same data structure you get while executing your application code.
Another solution would be to use Mockito's #Captor. This allows you to capture the value of why verifying the invocation of a mock. Later on, you can also write assertions on the captured value:
#Captor
private ArgumentCaptor<ClassOfListOfA> argumentCaptor;
#Test
public void yourTest() {
Mockito.verify(db2Dao).put(argumentCaptor.capture());
assertEquals("StringValue", argumentCaptur.getValue().getWhateverGetterYouHave);
}
The following code worked for me.
I partially accepted #rieckpil's answer. I used #Captor which is very handy.
The reason I had to mock getExternalData() is because its implementation is still a "TODO".
class TestClass extends BaseTest {
#Mock
private Db1Dao db1Dao;
#Mock
private Db2Dao db2Dao;
#Captor
private ArgumentCaptor<List<A>> argumentCaptor;
private ExecuteClass executeClass;
#BeforeEach
public void setUp() {
MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(this);
executeClass = new ExecuteClass(db1Dao, db2Dao);
}
#ParameterizedTest
#MethodSource("MockDataProvider")
public void executeClassTest(final MockData mockData) throws PutException {
Mockito.when(db1Dao.get(Mockito.any(), ...))
.thenReturn(mockData.getMetadatum());
ExecuteClass executeClassSpy = Mockito.spy(executeClass);
Mockito.when(executeClassSpy.getExternalData(Mockito.any()))
.thenReturn(mockData.getListOfString());
executeClassSpy.execute();
List<A> listOfA = mockData.getDesiredListOfA();
Mockito.verify(db2Dao).put(argumentCaptor.capture());
assertEquals(listOfA, argumentCaptor.getValue());
}
}
I can't seem to make this work let alone compile and I am at loss at how to fix it. My teacher gave us the following code (simplified for question's sake):
public static void doing1(String s) {
// add code here
}
public static void doing2(char start, char end) {
// add code here
}
public static int doing3(int num) {
// add code here
}
public static void doing4(Scanner keyboard) {
// add code here
}
I know what needs to go in each method (the work I mean) I just don't know how to print it out in the main method. We cannot change the code given to us, only add to it.
Thank you!
Overloading a method means having the same method name but the method signature (the parameters passed in) is different. So, what you have isn't actually an overload, it is for unique methods because they all have different names. As far as not compiling... what you posted looks fine - perhaps you have an error above or below that code. I believe this is what you are looking for:
public static void doing(String s) {
// add code here
}
public static void doing(char start, char end) {
// add code here
}
public static int doing(int num) {
// add code here
}
public static void doing(Scanner keyboard) {
// add code here
}
Here's a reference on overloads from the almighty John Skeet
I am trying to do some dependency injection for my tests using nUnit. I'm new to TDD and nUnit so it's possible I am missing something simple. So basically I've created a SetUp method for my interfaces. I originally was using a constructor but I read it's bad to do this when doing TDD so I now using a method.
When I run my test I construct an object and assign it to the interface and then I call a method using that interface. I want to test if it can parse a string decimal.
When I run my test it says test failed and the message is:Invalid signature for SetUp or TearDown method
See below for the actual code:
public class DonorTests
{
private IDonor _Donor;
private IValidateInput _ValidInput;
//DonorTests(IDonor donor, IValidateInput validInput)
//{
// _Donor = donor;
// _ValidInput = validInput;
//}
[SetUp]
void Setup(IDonor donor, IValidateInput validInput)
{
_Donor = donor;
_ValidInput = validInput;
}
[Test]
public void HandleStringNotDecimal()
{
_ValidInput = new ValidateInput();
Assert.IsTrue(_ValidInput.IsDecimal("3445.3450"));
}
}
My class that uses this interface
public class ValidateInput : IValidateInput
{
public decimal RoundTwoDecimalPlaces(decimal amount)
{
return Math.Round(amount);
}
public bool IsDecimal(string amount)
{
decimal ParsedDecimal;
return Decimal.TryParse(amount, out ParsedDecimal);
}
public decimal ConvertToString(string value)
{
decimal ParsedDecimal;
Decimal.TryParse(value, out ParsedDecimal);
return ParsedDecimal;
}
}
You're injecting dependencies using constructor injection previously, right? I think you will not be able to perform dependency injection using method decorated with SetUpAttribute because such method has to be parameterless. Also Setup method has to be public, see this SO thread.
How are we typically dealing with similar situations in our company is:
[TestFixture]
public class DonorTests
{
private IDonor _Donor;
private IValidateInput _ValidInput;
[SetUp]
public void Setup()
{
_Donor = new Donor();
_ValidInput = new ValidateInput();
}
[Test]
public void HandleStringNotDecimal()
{
Assert.IsTrue(_ValidInput.IsDecimal("3445.3450"));
}
}
Or if construction of ValidInput and Donor is cheap then we simply create new instance for each test, having special method for that purpose so when we decide to test another implementation of IValidateInput then it is enough to change it in one place only:
[TestFixture]
public class DonorTests
{
[Test]
public void HandleStringNotDecimal()
{
var validInput = CreateValidateInput();
Assert.IsTrue(validInput .IsDecimal("3445.3450"));
}
private static IValidateInput CreateValidateInput()
{
return new ValidateInput();
}
}
Besides the cause mentioned in the accepted answer, I have met the same error when leaving method as non-public (private or protected).
NUnit most probably relies on reflection and does not deal with non-public methods, so special methods (i.e. decorated with NUnit specific attributes) must be public.
I remember reading an example which shows how to set member of a mocked object, for ex:
MyClass mockedClass = mock(MyClass.class);
//and something like this to set `someVariable` with some value
Mokito.set(mockedClass.someVariable, actual_value_intended_to_be_set);
Unfortunately I am not able to find that link again. Can someone give a reverence to
such examples or explain it here ?
If you want your mock's outward behavior to look like mockedClass.someVariable has actual_value_intended_to_be_set, you can write:
when(mockedClass.getSomeVariable()).thenReturn(actual_value_intended_to_be_set);
Happy mocking!
Is 'this' perhaps what you are looking for?
public class MyClassTest {
#InjectMocks private MyClass mockedClass;
#BeforeMethod(groups = { "unit" })
public void setup() throws Exception {
mockedClass = new MyClass();
MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(this);
Mockito.when(getSomeVariable()).thenReturn(actual_value_intended_to_be_set);
}
#Test(groups = { "unit" })
public void testMyClass() throws Exception {
//almost too trivial an example since you just setup this.
Assert.assertEquals(getSomeVariable(), actual_value_intended_to_be_set);
}
}
It creates your MyClass object and sets the return value as well.
This has baffled me for a while now and I cannot seem to get the grasp of it. I'm using Cell Value Factory to populate a simple one column table and it does not populate in the table.
It does and I click the rows that are populated but I do not see any values in them- in this case String values. [I just edited this to make it clearer]
I have a different project under which it works under the same kind of data model. What am I doing wrong?
Here's the code. The commented code at the end seems to work though. I've checked to see if the usual mistakes- creating a new column instance or a new tableview instance, are there. Nothing. Please help!
//Simple Data Model
Stock.java
public class Stock {
private SimpleStringProperty stockTicker;
public Stock(String stockTicker) {
this.stockTicker = new SimpleStringProperty(stockTicker);
}
public String getstockTicker() {
return stockTicker.get();
}
public void setstockTicker(String stockticker) {
stockTicker.set(stockticker);
}
}
//Controller class
MainGuiController.java
private ObservableList<Stock> data;
#FXML
private TableView<Stock> stockTableView;// = new TableView<>(data);
#FXML
private TableColumn<Stock, String> tickerCol;
private void setTickersToCol() {
try {
Statement stmt = conn.createStatement();//conn is defined and works
ResultSet rsltset = stmt.executeQuery("SELECT ticker FROM tickerlist order by ticker");
data = FXCollections.observableArrayList();
Stock stockInstance;
while (rsltset.next()) {
stockInstance = new Stock(rsltset.getString(1).toUpperCase());
data.add(stockInstance);
}
} catch (SQLException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(WriteToFile.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
System.out.println("Connection Failed! Check output console");
}
tickerCol.setCellValueFactory(new PropertyValueFactory<Stock,String>("stockTicker"));
stockTableView.setItems(data);
}
/*THIS, ON THE OTHER HAND, WORKS*/
/*Callback<CellDataFeatures<Stock, String>, ObservableValue<String>> cellDataFeat =
new Callback<CellDataFeatures<Stock, String>, ObservableValue<String>>() {
#Override
public ObservableValue<String> call(CellDataFeatures<Stock, String> p) {
return new SimpleStringProperty(p.getValue().getstockTicker());
}
};*/
Suggested solution (use a Lambda, not a PropertyValueFactory)
Instead of:
aColumn.setCellValueFactory(new PropertyValueFactory<Appointment,LocalDate>("date"));
Write:
aColumn.setCellValueFactory(cellData -> cellData.getValue().dateProperty());
For more information, see this answer:
Java: setCellValuefactory; Lambda vs. PropertyValueFactory; advantages/disadvantages
Solution using PropertyValueFactory
The lambda solution outlined above is preferred, but if you wish to use PropertyValueFactory, this alternate solution provides information on that.
How to Fix It
The case of your getter and setter methods are wrong.
getstockTicker should be getStockTicker
setstockTicker should be setStockTicker
Some Background Information
Your PropertyValueFactory remains the same with:
new PropertyValueFactory<Stock,String>("stockTicker")
The naming convention will seem more obvious when you also add a property accessor to your Stock class:
public class Stock {
private SimpleStringProperty stockTicker;
public Stock(String stockTicker) {
this.stockTicker = new SimpleStringProperty(stockTicker);
}
public String getStockTicker() {
return stockTicker.get();
}
public void setStockTicker(String stockticker) {
stockTicker.set(stockticker);
}
public StringProperty stockTickerProperty() {
return stockTicker;
}
}
The PropertyValueFactory uses reflection to find the relevant accessors (these should be public). First, it will try to use the stockTickerProperty accessor and, if that is not present fall back to getters and setters. Providing a property accessor is recommended as then you will automatically enable your table to observe the property in the underlying model, dynamically updating its data as the underlying model changes.
put the Getter and Setter method in you data class for all the elements.